Brook Valley group not ruling out disbanding to avoid court costs

Tuesday, 28 May 2019

After almost two years of fighting, the Brook Valley Community Group may dissolve to avoid court costs.

A Nelson community group is considering dissolving as it faces more than $70,000 in costs from its case against poison drops in a bird sanctuary.

The lawyer for the Brook Valley Community Group, Sue Grey, said the group was considering options, including disbanding the incorporated society.

'We're identifying options. I can't really say which one is most likely at this stage.'

The Supreme Court this month denied the group leave to appeal further against the brodifacoum poison drops to kill predators and pests in the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary in 2017.

* Brook Valley Community Group lose appeal against poison drop

* Controversial Brook Sanctuary operation nears completion**

Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann said the society's main argument was fact-specific and did not raise a matter of public importance justifying a further appeal.

The court also rejected the group's bid for a greater discount in the costs earlier awarded against it - $26,411.14 to Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust, $23,789.98 to the Minister for the Environment and $21,460.05 to Nelson City Council.

The Supreme Court ordered a further $4,500 be divided equally to the trust, minister and council.

Grey said the decision not to grant the group leave to appeal was 'extremely disappointing'.

'They seem to have misunderstood that it was just about the Brook Sanctuary, but it is of national interest,' she said.

'The courts seem to have missed the point, that this drop is finished but there are thousands of kilometres with 1080 or brodifacoum dropped on it every year … it's an issue that's affecting communities all over New Zealand.'

Before the Supreme Court decision, the Brook Valley group's Facebook page discussed the options in the event its bid was rejected, with its leader favouring dissolution.

In a document which group chairman Christopher St Johanser shared on March 23, titled 'And If They Say 'No'?', the society's options in the 'hypothetical' situation that the appeal was denied were set out.

'Sue [Grey] advised us on the options that would then lie before us. These are three. One: We pay the costs awarded against us. Two: We dissolve the incorporated society. Three: We oblige the respondents to take an action against us. Sue also reminded us, as is appropriate to recall, that members of an incorporated society are not responsible for its debts.

'I propose we reject that option (paying costs) with what used to be called a gay laugh,' St Johanser wrote.

'Dissolve, or be dissolved … I propose to you that we apply to dissolve voluntarily forthwith should the leave panel of judges decide that our case, just though we know it to be, should not be heard by the Supreme Court. There can be no appeal against that decision. We shall be at the end of the legal road.'

The document said it was 'better in principle to act than to have action forced upon us', and noted that the Brook Valley Community Group could continue as an unincorporated society.

'A society (unincorporated) is by definition of the Companies Office simply an assemblage of persons, which no Registrar or Court has the power to dissolve. Freedom of assembly is a basic human right. Thus, the Brook Valley Community Group may continue, despite a possible loss of incorporated status.'

Members of an incorporated society are not personally liable for any debts or obligations of the society unless they are incurred through unlawful activity or if the society attempted to turn a profit.

Brook Waimarama Sanctuary CEO Ru Collin said he had no comment on the potential dissolution of the group.